Drem yol lok.

I'm not new to Dovahzul but I am new to contributing to this site as a whole.

I wanted to discuss the learning materials we have up front in the library, nust praag kos shun.

In Learning Dovahzul it discusses the Dovahzul Tokaanne, the dragonspeech numbers. This document has not been modified to Inmindaar Paarthurnax's announcement posted below:

http://thuum.org/viewthread.php?page=2&thread=369

We now get to where I may or may not tread on some feet, grik los lein.

The number icons suggested by the numbers sheet for simplicity in terms of logical passing; zu'u mindoraanni. That being said, my interpretation is not worth more than another. But, in a lot of languages, especially those that are considered modern (or in Dovahzul case, potent). The writing doesn't tend to make way to exceptional changes for numbers unless it's adopted from another language.

To the point: The symbols seem erroneous (non-canon of course, but even non-canon follows a logic). No offense is intended towards the creator, I've used the symbols thus far but I hesitate in saying they're in place. On one hand, since Dovahzul is a potent language, intended to be short in speech as every word carried a strong tone, numbers are inevitably too "wordy" for such a language (note that canon Dovahzul only relies on the concept of one or many, they are too proud and mighty to think about the numbers in a force or the amount of lives they have taken).

On the same hand, the number icons don't seem logical, it starts off logically with one, and even adding a strikethrough for two and three. Four can arguably also be logical with their standard scripture, but once you reach five, a standard is broken. Normally a symbol is thrice-struck (akin to the talon count on a dragon's limb), the exception being ii where it is four times marked. So three and four would still fit into this standard/exceptional limit. But five does not, and even logically beyond that, six doesn't even feel sensible.

But on the other hand, this has sufficed for those that wished to be a bit quicker with their writing.

My suggestion, and it can be taken with as much salt as anything should, is that tokaanne can be modified to fit one of these two suggestions:

1) The phonetic independent symbols (the icons themselves) should be reworked to focus more on using dot or short strokes to indicate shifts in number (the strikethrough concept was brilliant because it helped visually separate the mark count).

2) The symbols should adapt toward our jul knowledge and distinction, where artistically there can be an attempt to make our standard 0-9 symbols in up to three strokes. It would provide both a familiar and old fashioned mixture.

If this idea gets off the ground, fraajik! But I am no self concerned individual. I'd like to hear others' opinions on the matter or even better suggestions and counterarguments. I seek not any trouble, but merely an adaptation to what I find to be a bit out of place.

Thanks for the writeup! The Learning Dovahzul guide is out of date. There hasn't been a revised edition since it was made about a year ago.

The basis behind the existing number runes is a tally mark system. We felt that a tally mark system naturally fit with the long marks of the alphabet, and was more simplistic and primal than something that followed Arabic numerals. Thus they should not be thought of like the alphabetical runes, and aren't bound to the 3-stroke limit.

If you have alternate suggestions, though, feel free to maybe do some illustrations. Now would be a great time since I was just thinking about putting together a new numbers lesson for the Learn section. When considering new runes, my suggestion would be to think of them as developing from a tally system much like Roman numerals.

I'm new to the site as well, and as of a happy coincidence, that was the first topic I wanted to write someting about, a dragon numeral system. I've given it some thoughts and here are my proposition :

I agree that dragon numbers should follow a tally mark-style or a sign-value notation, much like roman numerals, wich would imply creating runes for numbers like 1, 5, 10, 50, 100 and so on ; because it's very ancient and our actual arabic place-value notation is a reasonably recent invention, as is the "zero" for that matter.

But, and you may not agree, what could make such a system really unique to dragon langage plus making runes stopping at three glyphs or strokes much easier is to actually use a different base.

Arguably, we use a decimal system (with 10 digits ranging from 0-9) because we have ten fingers. Excluding the dewclaw, dragons only have 6 fingers (well, claws...), three to each (hand ? paw ?), hence the three signs max rune system, I would guess. So I imagine that dragons would rather be using a senary system instead of a decimal one, with 6 different digits ranging from 0-5. They would then count : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, ... Using a roman-like system, this would require runes like 1, 3, 6, 36, 108, 216 or respectively 1, 3, 10, 100, 300, 1000 in senary.

I scribbled down something, as an example of what it might look like, along with some proposition of how you can read the numbers aloud :

(click to enlarge)

I give the rune, the value in decimal, in senary (between parenthesis) and the pronunciation.

Of course, everything I said can be argued and refuted, and if you think the base 6 out of place or a little bit too complicated I would totally understand. Same thing for the look of the rune and everything i said.

The advantage of such a system is that you can mess up the runes and write them in whatever order you like, it will still give the same number. Basically, to each rune, their is a attached value, and deciphering the number is a matter of adding (in base 6 !) every value, and convert it. There are some examples in the image above as well.

Currently the bigger number you can write is 5555 (senary) or 1295 in decimal but it's possible to add some new runes that act as multipliers x6, x36, x216 and so on...

I hope you find that somewhat interresting so we can discuss it and see you soon !

Oh come on! I was going to suggest a revised numerical system, and then I was going to suggest base six! Anyways back to what I can still say, maybe we can strikeout the numbers to multiply by 6? I'm going to use italics in place for my example.

10= (6 in decimal)

but 10= (36 in decimal)

Striking over it twice would multiply by 36. And so on until the sixth strike, or third seeing as six strikes would be hard to read. Anyways, that's my idea, hope someone either accepts or fixes this idea, or both.

Goodness, I apologize for my disappearance, krosis.

I do like the concept of base six. However, execution in the picture I feel needs to be a bit simpler in understanding for modern usage.

Consider base 6 should be items 0-5.

As the Dovah are concerned, numbers really aren't their forte, but as mun we must think within our realm as well. We should consider a symbol for 0, and allow ourselves the grace of efficiency so that anything that is a 4 digit number in base 6 is shown as a 4 mark number symbolically. I feel this will both aid in ease of reading, as well as make for a simple and mathematically fun base system.

Hopefully I will not vognun ful nelgaar and can contribute more in the future.

Pruzaah wundunne!

I agree with Dremspaangein, and while I was reading a thought struck me, the dov aren't going to be counting much. But the dragon priests will! This would be a completely different aproach to the same question. That would mean the counting would probably be in base 5, 10, or 20. Seeing as the rest of Nirn is also using 10, the dragon priests would probably do the same.

(I looked up a dragon priest to make sure they have five fingers :P)

Mul klo riik

I agree with Dremspaangein, and while I was reading a thought struck me, the dov aren't going to be counting much. But the dragon priests will! This would be a completely different aproach to the same question. That would mean the counting would probably be in base 5, 10, or 20. Seeing as the rest of Nirn is also using 10, the dragon priests would probably do the same.

(I looked up a dragon priest to make sure they have five fingers :P)

Right, dovah wouldn't focus much at all upon number, there is either none, one, or many to them. So would that conclude that the natural number system could have been integrated?

Well, if we do end up making several dialects of dragon, (as can be seen in some thread in the Hearth right now) I'd prefer to keep dovah as being, nid, gein, uv pogaas. Wheareas sosnaakke should actually count as we mortals do.

Here's a thought: what if, like their graphical counterpart, cuneiform, the dragon runes used base 12. Since the only thing in the game that uses base twelve is time (based on our time system, which in turn is based of the Sumerian/Cuneiform system) and time is sort of a special theme with Akatosh and the Dov, it makes a bit of sense. Only problem is the practicality, or lack thereof, in changing to a base other than ten. The Tengwar system uses cumulative groups of 3, so I'm not saying it shouldn't be changed, just that it may increase communication difficulty.

What if dragons came into contact with the modern world, and borrowed our Arabic numerals, but kept their traditions of stroke count and such? Here's how that might work out:

Maakrindah, I like that. Cuneform numbers. I've been looking at some other number systems in my... absence... Anyways, dscript number systems, galifreyan and Tengwar are what I've looked into. I found one galifreyan system where the scribe would be able to state the base system by putting that many dots on the number. I'll put a link if I can find it. 

Our number system is based on the number of fingers we have. Liis
Administrator
December 27, 2015